Decent, not great though.
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/02/9164231-employment-growth-picked-up-speed-in-november-jobless-rate-fell-to-86-percent
QuoteEmployment growth picked up speed in November; jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent
Joshua Lott / Reuters
By msnbc.com news services
Employment growth picked up speed in November, pushing the nation's unemployment rate down to 8.6 percent -- its lowest level since March 2009.
The Labor Department reported Friday that nonfarm U.S. payrolls increased by 120,000 last month, accelerating from October's 80,000 gain and roughly matching analysts' expectations. The U.S. jobless rate fell sharply from the prior month's 9 percent level.
Private employers added a net gain of 140,000 jobs in November, but governments shed 20,000 jobs, mostly at the local and state level. Governments at all levels have shed nearly a half-million jobs in the past year. The Labor Department revised up its job gains for September and October by 52,000 and 20,000, respectively.
"The labor market is gradually healing. It's a glacial pace, but we are taking small steps in the right direction," said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody's Analytics in West Chester, Penn.
More than half the jobs added last month were by retailers, restaurants and bars, a sign that holiday hiring has kicked in. Retailers added 50,000, the sector's biggest gain since April. Restaurants and bars hired 33,000 workers. The health care industry added 17,000.
Still, a worrisome drop in the size of the U.S. workforce means that even with a big decline in the unemployment rate in November, it's still not time to break out the champagne.
The fall in the jobless rate was aided by 315,000 people leaving the workforce. That pushed the participation rate, a ratio of the amount of the population in the labor force, down to 64.0 percent.
Those who exited the workforce, many of whom gave up on looking for work, outnumbered the 278,000 people who found jobs, according the Labor Department's household survey, which is separate from payrolls data.
Even with the recent gains, the economy isn't anywhere close to replacing the jobs lost in the recession. Employers began shedding workers in February 2008 and cut nearly 8.7 million jobs for the next 25 months. Since then, the economy has regained nearly 2.5 million of those jobs.
The jobs report is unlikely to take much pressure off President Barack Obama, whose economic stewardship will face the judgment of voters next November. The outlook for the U.S. economy is also being threatened by Europe's ongoing financial crisis.
The relative strength of the jobs report is in keeping with a recent trend, bolstered by upward revisions to the employment counts for September and October. But it is not seen as proving decisive for the U.S. Federal Reserve, which is weighing whether the recovery needs further monetary policy support.
Data ranging from manufacturing to retail sales suggest the pace of expansion could top 3 percent, in contrast to China, where growth is cooling and much of Europe, where growth has stalled.
advertisement
While the economy's growth pace appears to have accelerated from the third quarter's 2 percent annual rate, Europe's festering debt crisis poses a big threat. At the same time, U.S. fiscal policy is set to tighten in the new year, even if lawmakers extend a payroll tax cut.
Taken together, some analysts believe the headwinds facing the U.S. economy will lead the Fed to ease monetary policy further by buying more bonds.
Though the economy emerged from recession two years ago, about 25 million Americans are either out of work or underemployed, a fact that is hurting Obama's chances of winning a second term.
Analysts say the economy needs to create at least 125,000 jobs every month just to keep the unemployment rate steady. So far this year, job growth has averaged 125,600 jobs a month. At that pace, it would take about 4-1/2 years for employment just to return to where it was when the recession started.
But there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic.
While the government's survey of employers has shown a still tepid pace of job growth, its separate poll of households that is used to calculate the unemployment rate has suggested more-robust jobs gains.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
Are those temp jobs for the season? Both the holiday and the oncoming tax seasons?
I think the numbers are seasonally adjusted.
I think they've been upgrading previous data releases for a few months too, which is good. It suggests the recovery's picking up quicker than can be measured.
I think there's been a fair few positive signs from the US lately. It looks like the consumer's finally got their spend on again :w00t:
Sure. Things are great.
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 01:22:19 PM
I think the numbers are seasonally adjusted.
They are certainly adjusted somehow. :lol:
Have we outsourced this work to Greeks?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 03:31:04 PM
They are certainly adjusted somehow. :lol:
Have we outsourced this work to Greeks?
I don't get it. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2011, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 03:31:04 PM
They are certainly adjusted somehow. :lol:
Have we outsourced this work to Greeks?
I don't get it. :huh:
I don't believe the figures.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 03:43:38 PM
I don't believe the figures.
:rolleyes:
Short sellers. You guys are like a cult.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 03:43:38 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2011, 03:36:57 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 03:31:04 PM
They are certainly adjusted somehow. :lol:
Have we outsourced this work to Greeks?
I don't get it. :huh:
I don't believe the figures.
In what way?
It's not like the numbers are great or anything, 430,000 net jobs in three months is nothing to crow about.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 03:58:33 PM
It's not like the numbers are great or anything, 430,000 net jobs in three months is nothing to crow about.
A .4% reduction in the jobless rate in one month is actually pretty good. Am I misreading it?
A 430k increase in jobs in three months would not be that big of an impact, would it? How big is the workforce--150 billion maybe. Point four percent of that is 600k people. In a month. Complete guesses of course.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 04:11:36 PM
A .4% reduction in the jobless rate in one month is actually pretty good. Am I misreading it?
Unemployment rate is also affected by labor participation rate. It is also a sample number, so statistical error is inherent in it. I don't think that the jobs number and the unemployment number come from the same source, so month to month these numbers may diverge, although I may be mistaken on that point.
QuoteHow big is the workforce--150 billion maybe.
Maybe in China.
Quote from: DGuller on December 02, 2011, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 04:11:36 PM
A .4% reduction in the jobless rate in one month is actually pretty good. Am I misreading it?
Unemployment rate is also affected by labor participation rate. It is also a sample number, so statistical error is inherent in it. I don't think that the jobs number and the unemployment number come from the same source, so month to month these numbers may diverge, although I may be mistaken on that point.
QuoteHow big is the workforce--150 billion maybe.
Maybe in China.
lol Good catch. Still it was a typo, not a math error. 150 million is what I meant, obviously.
Fuck the U-3 numbers.
Apparently, 315k people dropped out of the workforce last month. Makes more sense now.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
Apparently, 315k people dropped out of the workforce last month. Makes more sense now.
:yes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2011, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 03:43:38 PM
I don't believe the figures.
:rolleyes:
Short sellers. You guys are like a cult.
Optimism's all well and good, but it pays to make sure all the math lines up.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 04:11:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 03:58:33 PM
It's not like the numbers are great or anything, 430,000 net jobs in three months is nothing to crow about.
A .4% reduction in the jobless rate in one month is actually pretty good. Am I misreading it?
A 430k increase in jobs in three months would not be that big of an impact, would it? How big is the workforce--150 billion maybe. Point four percent of that is 600k people. In a month. Complete guesses of course.
A bunch of people gave up, so they're not counted.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 04:11:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 03:58:33 PM
It's not like the numbers are great or anything, 430,000 net jobs in three months is nothing to crow about.
A .4% reduction in the jobless rate in one month is actually pretty good.
Not when you'll see a .4% increase in the jobless rate in February.
Steve still dead.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 06:44:17 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 04:11:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2011, 03:58:33 PM
It's not like the numbers are great or anything, 430,000 net jobs in three months is nothing to crow about.
A .4% reduction in the jobless rate in one month is actually pretty good. Am I misreading it?
A 430k increase in jobs in three months would not be that big of an impact, would it? How big is the workforce--150 billion maybe. Point four percent of that is 600k people. In a month. Complete guesses of course.
A bunch of people gave up, so they're not counted.
There is statistical error in each of the measures, which means the changes between months or a discrepancy between the payroll and unemployment numbers shouldn't be overanalyzed. Maybe with a more accurate methodology we would have seen the unemployment rate was 8.8% both last month and this month. Who knows.
It doesn't really matter though, since the jobs being created are minimum-wage service jobs.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
Apparently, 315k people dropped out of the workforce last month. Makes more sense now.
:pinch:
I hate such playing with the figures.
Apparently Japan does that a lot. Benefits expire after half a year and then you're no longer counted in unemployment statistics.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
Apparently, 315k people dropped out of the workforce last month. Makes more sense now.
:pinch:
I hate such playing with the figures.
Apparently Japan does that a lot. Benefits expire after half a year and then you're no longer counted in unemployment statistics.
How is this playing with the figures? There is a definition to unemployment rate, several in fact. Those definitions are merely being adhered to.
Also, regarding benefits, I don't know about Japan, but in US, whether you receive unemployment benefits or not matters not at all whether you're counted as unemployed. It's one of those myths that just won't die.
It's treating a devastating loss for America as if it was a victory.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2011, 07:34:46 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
Apparently, 315k people dropped out of the workforce last month. Makes more sense now.
:pinch:
I hate such playing with the figures.
Apparently Japan does that a lot. Benefits expire after half a year and then you're no longer counted in unemployment statistics.
How is this playing with the figures? There is a definition to unemployment rate, several in fact. Those definitions are merely being adhered to.
Also, regarding benefits, I don't know about Japan, but in US, whether you receive unemployment benefits or not matters not at all whether you're counted as unemployed. It's one of those myths that just won't die.
Unemployed is unemployed, that people have given up being on the list of folks actively looking for work shouldn't make the unemployment rate drop and make everyone go "hurrah!"
Are new graduates (high school, college, other) counted in the U-3 statistics?
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:48:41 PM
Unemployed is unemployed, that people have given up being on the list of folks actively looking for work shouldn't make the unemployment rate drop and make everyone go "hurrah!"
Then we should include stay at home moms and trustifarians as unemployed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:48:41 PM
Unemployed is unemployed, that people have given up being on the list of folks actively looking for work shouldn't make the unemployment rate drop and make everyone go "hurrah!"
Then we should include stay at home moms and trustifarians as unemployed.
Probably not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 07:57:30 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:48:41 PM
Unemployed is unemployed, that people have given up being on the list of folks actively looking for work shouldn't make the unemployment rate drop and make everyone go "hurrah!"
Then we should include stay at home moms and trustifarians as unemployed.
Did they include you all that time?
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 07:59:32 PM
Probably not.
Of course you should. They're capable of work, but not employed.
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:48:41 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2011, 07:34:46 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 02, 2011, 06:29:04 PM
Apparently, 315k people dropped out of the workforce last month. Makes more sense now.
:pinch:
I hate such playing with the figures.
Apparently Japan does that a lot. Benefits expire after half a year and then you're no longer counted in unemployment statistics.
How is this playing with the figures? There is a definition to unemployment rate, several in fact. Those definitions are merely being adhered to.
Also, regarding benefits, I don't know about Japan, but in US, whether you receive unemployment benefits or not matters not at all whether you're counted as unemployed. It's one of those myths that just won't die.
Unemployed is unemployed, that people have given up being on the list of folks actively looking for work shouldn't make the unemployment rate drop and make everyone go "hurrah!"
Tyr, all the statistics are reported. The labor force participation rate in connection with the unemployment rate are both monitored and (I presume) up on the BLS website along with a zillion other statistics.
Interestingly enough, in my workplace, government statistics are regarded as gold standard in terms of quality.
Don't all answer my reasonable question at once.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:07:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 07:59:32 PM
Probably not.
Of course you should. They're capable of work, but not employed.
But they're also unemployable.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2011, 08:07:30 PM
Tyr, all the statistics are reported. The labor force participation rate in connection with the unemployment rate are both monitored and (I presume) up on the BLS website along with a zillion other statistics.
Mim says 315,000 dropped out.
And in the UK I know it is people on the dole and not on training which they release figures for.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 08:16:46 PM
Don't all answer my reasonable question at once.
The definitions should be on the BLS website; I don't know the specifics offhand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:07:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 07:59:32 PM
Probably not.
Of course you should. They're capable of work, but not employed.
What about people who are incapable of work, but still employed?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2011, 10:02:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 04, 2011, 08:07:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 07:59:32 PM
Probably not.
Of course you should. They're capable of work, but not employed.
What about people who are incapable of work, but still employed?
Raz, don't let yourself get pulled in to an argument with Yi and Neil. Yi's an unrepentant fuck-the-unemployed-they're-all-lazy-black-single-moms-anyway Reaganaut and Neil's Canadian, where the government pays off his mortgage or some shit if he's unemployed.
You have a soul, and they don't.
That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me. I'm touched.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 04, 2011, 10:26:36 PM
That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me. I'm touched.
Take a bath and get a job.
Raz, don't let yourself get swayed by CdM. He spends his every waking moment wishing he was me.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 08:16:46 PM
Don't all answer my reasonable question at once.
The definitions should be on the BLS website; I don't know the specifics offhand.
I'm not sure the BLS answers it. The number of new graduates is easy to get ahold of*, but it would be incorrect to say that all graduates (at every level) are part of the labor force, as many of them enroll in further education immediately. So what, if any, number do they use to add to the labor force every spring?
Hopefully not only employed graduates, considering unemployed graduates who have not been in the labor force while students to
remain unattached to it after completing their program.
They do have a "new entrants" listing, but do not further define it or describe how they arrived at about an average of 1,200,000 for each month of 2011. I'd suspect 2011's total number of graduates not seeking higher education must dwarf that number (hell, I can account for about 4% of that number just with 2011's J.D.s); perhaps that's accounted for when they stop being "new," but I don't know when that is.
*Actually, I couldn't find it. Granted, I did not try extra-hard, but it should have been very easy to find. :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 10:40:29 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 08:16:46 PM
Don't all answer my reasonable question at once.
The definitions should be on the BLS website; I don't know the specifics offhand.
I'm not sure the BLS answers it. The number of new graduates is easy to get ahold of*, but it would be incorrect to say that all graduates (at every level) are part of the labor force, as many of them enroll in further education immediately. So what, if any, number do they use to add to the labor force every spring? Hopefully not only employed graduates, considering unemployed graduates who have not been in the labor force while students to remain unattached to it after completing their program.
They do have a "new entrants" listing, but do not further define it or describe how they arrived at about an average of 1,200,000 for each month of 2011. I'd suspect 2011's total number of graduates not seeking higher education must dwarf that number (hell, I can account for about 4% of that number just with 2011's J.D.s); perhaps that's accounted for when they stop being "new," but I don't know when that is.
*Actually, I couldn't find it. Granted, I did not try extra-hard, but it should have been very easy to find. :huh:
I don't know the methodology, though I know it is published. I would think a graduate going into further education is not joining the workforce, a graduate that is looking for a job but hasn't found one is unemployed, and a graduate with a job is employed. I assume that the surveys they do are detailed enough to figure out which of these groups someone is in.
Most of the unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted, and I guess that means they are somehow smoothing the glut of unemployed graduates each may/june so the number doesn't spike, but I don't know the details.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 04, 2011, 10:54:10 PMMost of the unemployment numbers are seasonally adjusted, and I guess that means they are somehow smoothing the glut of unemployed graduates each may/june so the number doesn't spike, but I don't know the details.
The smoothing also covers seasonal employment I believe - retail workers at Christmas for example.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 04, 2011, 10:40:29 PM
I'm not sure the BLS answers it. The number of new graduates is easy to get ahold of*, but it would be incorrect to say that all graduates (at every level) are part of the labor force, as many of them enroll in further education immediately. So what, if any, number do they use to add to the labor force every spring? Hopefully not only employed graduates, considering unemployed graduates who have not been in the labor force while students to remain unattached to it after completing their program.
They do have a "new entrants" listing, but do not further define it or describe how they arrived at about an average of 1,200,000 for each month of 2011. I'd suspect 2011's total number of graduates not seeking higher education must dwarf that number (hell, I can account for about 4% of that number just with 2011's J.D.s); perhaps that's accounted for when they stop being "new," but I don't know when that is.
*Actually, I couldn't find it. Granted, I did not try extra-hard, but it should have been very easy to find. :huh:
Most of it is done through sampling. The government doesn't look at the rolls of people graduating college, and make some assumptions about that.
So if 120,000 found a new job and 315,000 quit and that's a 0.4 percentage point drop it would suggest that just 108 million Americans are employed. That seems very low. If the participation rate is 64% and even if you exclude those below 16 and above 65, the figure of employed Americans should be higher. Am I missing something here?
Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2011, 09:00:50 PMMim says 315,000 dropped out.
And in the UK I know it is people on the dole and not on training which they release figures for.
Doesn't necessarily mean dropped out. I don't know if that's the American equivalent of NEET, it could be people going to education or training or something like that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 04, 2011, 10:19:24 PM
Raz, don't let yourself get pulled in to an argument with Yi and Neil. Yi's an unrepentant fuck-the-unemployed-they're-all-lazy-black-single-moms-anyway Reaganaut and Neil's Canadian, where the government pays off his mortgage or some shit if he's unemployed.
You have a soul, and they don't.
The only thing that saves this from being just another tired CDM punch line is that this one shows you don't even understand what the argument is about. Usually you manage to figure at least that part out.
What, they don't pay off your mortgage in Canada when you lose your job?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 05, 2011, 05:42:25 AM
What, they don't pay off your mortgage in Canada when you lose your job?
No, the what is you're trying to fit the round peg of your Jon Stewart punchline into the square hole of a discussion of whether people who are not seeking work should be included in the unemployment statistic. It's not as bad as responding that Bush looks like a monkey to any argument about Gulf War II, but it's still not in the same time zone.
I'm going to continue lashing out with sweeping generalizations and wildly inaccurate ad hominems, as that's the only weapon I have for the 30 seconds or so I can only be bothered to spend typing.
Kay.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 05, 2011, 05:57:37 AM
I'm going to continue lashing out with sweeping generalizations and wildly inaccurate ad hominems, as that's the only weapon I have for the 30 seconds or so I can only be bothered to spend typing.
:D
Quote from: Ideologue on December 02, 2011, 04:33:00 PM
Fuck the U-3 numbers.
Next turn, you'll go to U-4 and have to roll for elimination if isolated. :(
Quote from: Zanza on December 05, 2011, 02:10:30 AM
So if 120,000 found a new job and 315,000 quit and that's a 0.4 percentage point drop it would suggest that just 108 million Americans are employed. That seems very low. If the participation rate is 64% and even if you exclude those below 16 and above 65, the figure of employed Americans should be higher. Am I missing something here?
The participation rate doesn't exclude those over 65 if I'm reading the data correctly, just those under 16. And I think you and I must both be missing something, unless there are approximately 80 million Americans under 16--and according to the Census Bureau, there are only about 74 million of us under 18. Seems like there should be something on the order of 150 million Ameicans employed, so a change of 435,000 should be a 0.29% change, not a 0.4% change. Maybe there's some rounding errors in our math (by "our math", I mean yours and mine, not the BLS's)--it is "only" a bit more than 1/10 of 1% difference, which doesn't seem like much, but it translates to something on the order of 6 million people.
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 03:31:58 PM
It doesn't really matter though, since the jobs being created are minimum-wage service jobs.
Actually, the current measure is always called "unemployment," but it's been "unemployed and underemployed" lately. People like myself who are stuck with a crappy min-wage service job usually still count toward the percentage.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 05, 2011, 11:27:40 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 04, 2011, 03:31:58 PM
It doesn't really matter though, since the jobs being created are minimum-wage service jobs.
Actually, the current measure is always called "unemployment," but it's been "unemployed and underemployed" lately. People like myself who are stuck with a crappy min-wage service job usually still count toward the percentage.
Interesting in light of this quote from the FAQs:
QuoteBecause of the difficulty of developing an objective set of criteria which could be readily used in a monthly household survey, no official government statistics are available on the total number of persons who might be viewed as underemployed. Even if many or most could be identified, it would still be difficult to quantify the loss to the economy of such underemployment.
I have to agree that it would be hard to come up with a good objective definition of "underemployed". You seem to equate it to having a minimum wage job. I would tend to equate it more with having a part-time job but wanting a full-time job. My definition would almost certainly count more people as underemployed than yours, but how you'd determine how many part-time workers actually want full-time might be tricky. My definition would also not count part-time workers who want more hours but not full-time (for example, a college student who is working for extra spending money but only getting 5-10 hours a week might want to get something more on the lines of 20 hours, but wouldn't want 40 hours).
And of course, there are other possible definitions of underemployed--people working low-pay/low
Quote from: dps on December 05, 2011, 05:43:22 PM
I have to agree that it would be hard to come up with a good objective definition of "underemployed". You seem to equate it to having a minimum wage job. I would tend to equate it more with having a part-time job but wanting a full-time job. My definition would almost certainly count more people as underemployed than yours, but how you'd determine how many part-time workers actually want full-time might be tricky. My definition would also not count part-time workers who want more hours but not full-time (for example, a college student who is working for extra spending money but only getting 5-10 hours a week might want to get something more on the lines of 20 hours, but wouldn't want 40 hours).
And of course, there are other possible definitions of underemployed--people working low-pay/low
Actually, I consider "underemployed" to mean "employed with a combination of hours and pay that nevertheless is inadequate to independently pay for housing, food, clothing, minimal transportation, and health insurance." So, to my mind, it's more of a Venn diagram, with some overlap in retail from, say, middle management and above.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 06, 2011, 09:34:10 AM
Actually, I consider "underemployed" to mean "employed with a combination of hours and pay that nevertheless is inadequate to independently pay for housing, food, clothing, minimal transportation, and health insurance." So, to my mind, it's more of a Venn diagram, with some overlap in retail from, say, middle management and above.
Your definition would include full-time students who are working part-time jobs for extra spending money (and some other people, such as some retirees, working part-time for similar reasons). Is that intentional?
Quote from: dps on December 06, 2011, 07:18:19 PM
Your definition would include full-time students who are working part-time jobs for extra spending money (and some other people, such as some retirees, working part-time for similar reasons). Is that intentional?
Homeowner, tenant, or co-tenant. Someone for whom living independently would be a primary concern. Not including college dorm residents or someone in a situation where their basic needs are taken care of voluntarily (living free with family members, upkeep supported by retirement/disability programs, etc).